Andrew Huberman· PhD
So, what this means is putting yourself into scenarios where you might not be the top performer, right? Playing a game that you're not really that good at.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
So, what this means is putting yourself into scenarios where you might not be the top performer, right? Playing a game that you're not really that good at.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
What I'm about to tell you is that anyone and everyone can benefit from engaging in a bit more of this playful mindset. It's really about allowing yourself to expand the number of outcomes that you're willing to entertain and to think about how you relate to those different outcomes. So, what this means is putting yourself into scenarios where you might not be the top performer, right?